Monterey County sheriff says jail won't take any more state prisoners after judges order their release

The reactions of local criminal justice leaders ranged from shocked to inspired to defiant Thursday after federal judges ordered California to immediately begin further reducing the prison population, even if it means waiving state laws to do so.

Because the judges' order expands good behavior credits retroactively, more than 4,000 state prisoners could come home sooner than expected unless the state comes up with some other way to lower the inmate population by the same amount, in addition to other measures that would bring the total to 10,000 fewer inmates by year's end.

The already packed Monterey County Jail could be affected by the ruling, because if other measures aren't successful, the judges' order proposes sending state prisoners with nine months left on their sentences home to serve the time in local jails.

A defiant Sheriff Scott Miller promised the prisoners won't come to his jail without a fight.

"They may be sending them to county jails, but not to Monterey County Jail," he said. "We won't accept them. They can back the bus up. Somebody has to take a stand."

California is under long-standing orders by the three-judge panel to reduce the prison population to 137 percent of design capacity. The orders resulted from two inmate lawsuits contending that overcrowding contributes to unconstitutional levels of medical and mental health care in California prisons. The reduction plan has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and federal courts have for years maintained oversight of prison mental and medical health care, including court battles in Sacramento this week over Salinas Valley State Prison's psychiatric unit.

Gov. Jerry Brown also promised to fight back.

"The state will seek an immediate stay of this unprecedented order to release almost 10,000 inmates by the end of this year," Brown said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

In their sharply worded 51-page ruling, the judges came close to citing Brown for contempt, noting the state's "failure to follow the clear terms of our April 11, 2013, order requiring them to submit a plan for compliance with our order, not a plan for noncompliance."

Brown's plan fell short of the court-ordered reduction total by 2,300 inmates.

The judges suggested the state expand good behavior credits for certain offenders, even making them retroactive, a step Brown opposed.

The federal court said it would waive local and state laws that might impede its orders.

The judges noted the politicized nature of the state's realignment efforts, and said because of that, they did not expect the Legislature to be cooperative.

Referring to Monterey County's former state Sen. Abel Maldonado, the ruling noted that "the challenger in the next gubernatorial campaign is making the topic of prison reform already accomplished, i.e., realignment, a central component of his platform.

"This makes it even less likely that Governor Brown will urge the passage of the plan or that the Legislature will grant its approval."

Miller said the battle between the judges and Sacramento's politicians shouldn't be taken out on local communities.

"The judges are taking their problems with the state and dumping them on the counties," he said. "They're basically saying, 'We don't want 'em, here they come.' This can't be good for public safety."

It's possible that many prisoners who once would have been placed on parole may end up under new-fangled Post-Release Community Supervision, which in Monterey County places lower-level offenders in the care of its Probation Department.

Some inmates who have already earned good behavior credits could be released immediately if those credits are expanded, as the judges ordered.

Despite the forceful nature of the judges' order, it was still unclear how many of the inmates released would come under probation's jurisdiction.

"We just don't know," said Probation Chief Manuel Real, who chairs the Community Corrections Partnership that oversees the local response to realignment.

Real noted the state is allowed a bit of flexibility in how it will reduce the prison population, which a corrections department report this week showed was again rising after dramatic drops because of realignment.

But if the required reduction isn't achieved by year's end, the judges promised they will begin releasing certain "low risk" inmates immediately.

Monterey County Public Defender Jim Egar applauded the judges' order and said the release of more low-risk prison inmates to county care doesn't have to spell a public safety disaster.

"Treatment and supervision are the best means to promote public safety," he said. "Pure punishment has been demonstrated repeatedly to be unsuccessful in changing behavior."

Real said the county is "moving toward the evidence-based approach" to treatment and rehabilitation, "but that does take some time."

"It's a real concern because we're not prepared for an additional 10,000 inmates," he said.

The judges said simply reducing the prison population is not the final goal of their orders — rather, it's bringing prison health care up to constitutional levels.

Egar echoed similar concerns.

"Nobody says that the state can't lock dangerous people up," he said. "However, all humans deserve to have fundamental basic care, whether it's mental or medical or disabilities or safety.

"The state has pretended that half of the equation doesn't exist, and the courts have been forced to step in to protect basic human rights. In the long run, treatment for substance abuse and mental illness will make all of us safer and enable people to get back on the right track."

Meanwhile, the Monterey County Jail, designed to hold 825 inmates, had a population count of 1,132 this week after the first eight inmates were sent north as part of a plan to transfer up to 80 inmates to Alameda County.

The transfers are expected to take place incrementally, Miller said, with no definite time frame at this point.

"This was kind of a test run," he said.

Now he and other officials are waiting to see how quickly Brown's administration will respond to the judges' orders, or whether a higher court will issue a stay.

"I don't think anybody has any idea what the state will be forced to do," Miller said.